Winter Count 2006

Philanthropy in Indian Country — Are we informed?

by Gabrielle Strong

The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development (2002) has reported that, proportionately, American Indians receive very little of total foundation sector resources — actually, no more than 0.5 percent. There also seems to be a "market concentration" in grantmaking to Native America. In the prior 14 years, 10 foundations contributed 61 percent of the resources, and 60 percent of that giving focused on standard grantmaking areas, including education, arts/culture/humanities, community improvement and development and health. However, several critical areas identified by tribal communities themselves often went unfunded or underfunded, including youth programs, tribal government infrastructure development, food and nutrition and Native spirituality.

Philanthropy plays a significant role in addressing human needs that are not addressed by either the public or private sectors. In the case of American Indian peoples, the U.S. government has had a long obligation, created within hundreds of treaties, to provide certain forms of financial and technical assistance to tribes. The prevailing public perception is that the needs of American Indian peoples are adequately being met through tribal and/or federal programs. Yet little could be further from the truth.

Federal Programs Inadequate

The United States Commission on Civil Rights' 2004 report, "A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country," reviewed six federal agencies with the largest expenditures for American Indian programs, and found:

• The federal government spends less per capita on Indian health care than on any other group for which it has this responsibility, including Medicaid recipients, prisoners, veterans and military personnel. Annually, the Indian Health Service (IHS) spends 60 percent less on its beneficiaries than the national per person average.

• After accounting for inflation, the Housing and Urban Development's Tribal Housing Loan Guarantee Program lost nearly 70 percent of its purchasing power over the last four years, and the Native American Housing Block Grant has lost funding for three consecutive years.

• The Department of Education's Office of Indian Education (OIE) remains a relatively small portion of the total discretionary budget (ranging from 0.2 to 0.3 percent) from 1998 to 2003. OIE funding has undergone several reductions over the last decades.

Tribal gaming is a fairly new vehicle of economic development in Indian Country. However, just about 50 tribes, or 10 percent of the nation's 500 federally recognized tribes, have gaming operations that are profitable enough to extend beyond their own tribal infrastructure development. Despite this fact, Indian grantseekers regularly face stereotypical assumptions and ill-informed fundraising expectations from mainstream philanthropy regarding the capacity and availability of tribal gaming revenue. Tribal philanthropy is doing more than its fair share. Despite this generosity, Indian philanthropy gains little recognition.

Giving for Minnesota's largest tribal grantmaker, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, first appeared on Minnesota Council on Foundations reports and rankings last year. MCF's Giving in Minnesota report, 2005 Edition, shows the Shakopee Mdewakanton Community gave $7.9 million in 2003. For 2004, Shakopee Mdewakanton, which operates Mystic Lake Casino, gave $10.3 million and ranked number 21 among all Minnesota foundations and giving programs and 11th on the list of corporate grantmakers. The tribal community gives to both Native and non-Native causes and organizations.

American Indian participation and leadership in the philanthropic arena remains scarce. The Harvard Project notes that among four types of foundations studied, communities of color have the highest representation in the public foundations (27 percent), and the lowest representation in the family foundations (3 percent).

Incremental Changes in Philanthropy

MCF reported "incremental improvements in applying strategies for inclusiveness among Minnesota grantmakers" in its third five-year benchmark report, Working Towards Diversity III. The authors note a higher level of discourse on diversity and inclusiveness practices, yet still only incremental change. So Minnesota's foundations are thinking or talking about diversity more, but the philanthropic landscape remains relatively unchanged from five years ago. Paid staff of Minnesota foundations and corporate giving programs is less diverse than nationwide, the 10 or so local American Indian foundation staff notwithstanding. While Minnesota grantmaking boards are more diverse than the national field, philanthropic institutions must continue increasing authentic leadership opportunities and opening doors to the more full and authoritative inclusion of diverse peoples and perspectives. And there are a number of local giving models from which the field can learn. Existing models of community engagement can assist the field in building and sustaining philanthropic partnerships, and cultivating philanthropic leadership.

To be helpful, philanthropy must be informed. Is philanthropy certain of key elements of a vibrant tribal community? Do these elements include Native land, traditions, language and spirituality, sustainable economic renewal, or decision-making processes consistent with community values?

Is philanthropy familiar with the key challenges of tribal communities? Do they include the devaluing of Native world views, thinking and values, the contemporary impact of colonization, retaining cultural and political autonomy, the lack of institutional resources, persistent poverty, myths and stereotypes, health and educational disparities? Is philanthropy cognizant of the great diversity of context and need throughout Indian Country? Do we consider the vast tribal, cultural, and socio-economic conditions throughout our own region? Are we aware of the relevant actors and institutions?

Being informed is one essential element in effective grantmaking; establishing an approach is another. Does philanthropy embrace Native self-determination as an overarching theme? Self-determination has both political and cultural implications. Are we going beyond the easiest to fund or most well-connected? Do we see opportunities to foster connections across sectors, and support alliance-building between and among tribal governments and nonprofits, reservation and urban communities? Do we see the importance in developing the leadership and capacity of Native institutions, tribal governments and Native nonprofits?

Engagement Is Critical

The need to engage American Indians as partners, donors, trustees and grantees in the philanthropic sector is well documented and long overdue. Such engagement is critical to the framing of issues facing American Indians; in the very definition and identification of issues, challenges and solutions; in identifying and nurturing relevant partnerships; and in expanding the one-dimensional view of American Indians. While American Indian advisory boards and committees are an important step in community engagement, more transformative philanthropic practices need to be implemented. American Indian leadership and participation in philanthropy and the development of informed foundation practice and priorities will more accurately reflect the needs and assets of tribal communities. GF

Gaby Strong (Sisseton-Wahpeton Dakota) is program director of the Grotto Foundation.

More Information from the Winter 2006 Edition of Giving Forum

• A New Season of Strength: Philanthropy in Minnesota Indian Country

• Examples of Native Philanthropy in Minnesota

• Active Participants in Philanthropy Offer Native Perspectives

• Resources

© Copyright 2006 Minnesota Council on Foundations
Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited.